As an avid cyclist, I’ve noticed a common theme about the bicyclist-motorist relationship.
There isn’t one.
This lack of relationship boils down to the individual aims of each group. Cyclists want cars to acknowledge their right to the road, while drivers just want anyone who isn’t going fifteen miles over the speed limit off their pavement.
So it seems as if we’ve hit an impasse, since the former group isn’t likely to maintain normal physiological processes at a constant 45 to 50 mph pace, and the latter group will never concede anything resembling “rights” to other groups.
John Locke would be so pissed.
I’ve even seen a few Internet tough guys on forums, including the Lincoln Journal Star’s, hurling thinly veiled threats at cyclists who choose to ride on the roads. These obviously well-versed and prudent legal scholars put forth the implication that if a biker so chooses to ride in the streets, then any misfortune that may befall them is their own fault.
The same logic applies if you’re walking to your apartment at night and you’re sexually assaulted. These hyper-intelligent legal experts will explain to you that it’s just an unfortunate accident stemming from your poor judgment – of walking home.
Man, I’d want those guys to be my lawyers if I ever got into a fix.
So the animosity builds up between these groups. Thus, tempers flare, people get excited and in its worst incarnation, people die.
And yet, this whole thing seems ridiculous at times. There is no law forbidding slower moving vehicles on the streets, save the interstate. Mopeds and even an occasional golf cart dot our urban jungle; these vehicles are just accepted as a natural part of the asphalt.
But stick someone on a triangle frame with two wheels and handlebars, and we’ve got a freaking disaster on our hands.
The roots of motorists’ distaste for cyclists — like most things — boil down to impatience and unfamiliarity. There’s always the sense for a motorist trapped behind a bike that they’re not getting to their destination quick enough. So in an effort to regain those 35 seconds that have now been added to their trip time, they try to move past the rider as quickly, and as stupidly, as possible.
There’s also a sense of panic that can attack some motorists. I have a strong feeling that when they see a cyclist ahead of them, they aren’t actually seeing a cyclist. Instead, they see something like a giant Xenomorph from the Alien film franchise on a Schwinn. So they panic and try to exit their lane and avoid possible impregnation of alien larvae into their abdomens, and an inevitable explosion of said larvae through their stomachs.
This panic ultimately results in tragedy – usually for the cyclist. In the interests of trying to resolve this long-standing West Side Story-esque feud between cyclists and motorists, some issues should be addressed that pertain to both sides.
And I promise no spontaneous song and dance while snapping my fingers.
If you’re in a car and you hit a cyclist who’s obeying all laws, simply out of carelessness, then it is your fault. The city attorney may not have the cojones to prosecute, but from a legal and moral stance, you screwed up.
If you’re in a motor vehicle, there is no reason for you to get upset with someone riding on a street — especially if they have nowhere else to ride. It makes you seem like a grumpy old codger who remembers the good ol’ days when bicycles hadn’t even been invented yet. Of course, at that point, cars hadn’t been invented yet either.
Of course, cyclists aren’t infallible demigods of the roadway. For all the negatives that motorists are guilty of, bikers have just as much to answer for. So in the spirit of equality, let a few facts regarding safe bicycle riding be known:
Riding on the street will be inherently dangerous until the end of time. Thus, in the interest of being a respectful and safe bike rider, try to avoid the streets if you can help it.
For God’s sake, obey the traffic laws. It’s the biggest piece of ammunition drivers have against fellow cyclists. The instant a bicycle hits the street pavement, it is technically a vehicle, and it carries all the same laws that a car would. Stopping at red lights, using appropriate signals when turning, merging into correct lanes, etc., are all required.
Believe it or not, your greasy dreadlocks, unbuttoned collared shirt and POS Huffy don’t actually imply that you can transcend regular traffic laws. It all may seem like fundamentals, but this great war between bike riders and motor vehicles doesn’t have to be like this. A mutual respect and careful attention to one another can create an air of harmony and unity on the road.
Or alternatively, if you’re a driver and hit somebody on a bike, I’m sure some of those hyper-intelligent legal experts are more than willing to argue on your behalf.
Kyle Citta is a junior English, history, premed, prelaw major. Reach him at kylecitta@dailynebraskan.com
8 comments
By BETSY MCCAUGHEYPRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health
plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our
health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before
Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan
with limits on your access to specialists and tests. Two
main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal
of combining them into a finished product by August. Under
either, a new government bureaucracy will select health
plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will
have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now
get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year
"grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you
buy your own insurance, you'll have less time. And as soon
as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in
copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year
-- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House
bill, p. 16-17). When you file your taxes, if you can't
prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be
fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of
a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically
enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p.
167-168). It's one thing to require that people getting
government assistance tolerate managed care, but the
legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you
and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p.
57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of
health care and to ensure that people have the same
health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will
cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government
assistance until their household income reaches $88,000
(House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll
have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes. The price
tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to
$1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half
of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning
$280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012
unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199).
The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health
benefits under Medicare. There's plenty of waste in
Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only
1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from
curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will
likely come from reducing what patients get. One troubling
provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a
counseling session every five years (and more often if they
become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives
for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions
cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive
antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered
nutrition and hydration." This mandate invites abuse, and
seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really
want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from
slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for
covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums
to "community transformation grants," home visits for
expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the
creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and
advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages. The most
recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83
percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat
satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81
percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with
cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the
United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord
Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization
ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for
being responsive to patients' needs, including providing
timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Congress should
pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too
much to lose with this legislation. Betsy McCaughey is
founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a
former lieutenant governor of New York.
betsy@hospitalinfection.org
We fat slobs prefer things like celebrity mud wrestling or any thing with women and cleavage. Only fags like you and Kyle like American Idol
I wasn't aware that motorists are in such a panic. After all we are encased in 3500 to 4500 lbs of steel, cyclists have what? a 45 lb Schwinn. Heck Kyle if one of us motorist took a notion and got tired of all the crap you keep spewing we could with an simple swerve of our car send you tumbling into the weeds or bounce you into the opposing lane and into the path of an eighteen wheeler. Or we could just speed up and turn you into a hood ornament or maybe send you through our windshield and make you a bleeding hospital ready passenger. So whose scared of cyclist?
This column does alot to explain why Kyle Citta is so full of it. Its obvious that he lack any realistic concept of the world around him.
Hey Kyle try riding your bike next time and I'll show you whose got something to fear.